Been kind of wondering what to think of the last episode that I saw of the Americans. It was the one where Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinkley Jr.
What happened after that was that the Russian spies were concerned that there would be a coup if Reagan died. The concern grew even more when Alexander Haig said that he was in control now.
This set off the plot where Elizabeth and Phil Jennings argued over the next move that could send the Americans and Russians into a nuclear war. Phillip took control as the voice of reason telling Elizabeth that Reagan would be fine and that nothing would happen. Eventually, after protesting, Elizabeth would see the light.
I was never big on Hollywood trying to portray history in TV shows and movies in this sort of revisionist history. They have enough trouble when they make movies where there is a reading of a Will when there is no such thing.
Of course, the Oliver Stone movie JFK was a great example of bias and revisionist history. I thought that Gerald Posner’s book, case closed was a great example of this, leaving out very important parts of Jim Garrisons investigation. For example, Garrison went on a TV show and said that he cracked Oswald’s code. He gave a bunch of numbers and said you can divide them by this and come up with the answer.
A reporter in the audience said you just made all that up to come up with an answer you wanted. Garrison would reply, so do you have a better idea.
I’m not big on trusting hollywood blending history especially after that. There were problems with Tom Hank’s movie Charlie Wilson’s War as well. Steve Cole’s book Ghost War painted a completely different picture of Charlie Wilson.
In any case, I shouldn’t have to look up things in non-fiction books to see that movies have their own reasons for doing this. When I see this on a TV show like the Americans, I get uncomfortable.
TV shows are for entertainment. Not for putting a spin on something like the Cold war. If people want to see that, then they can read about it or watch a documentary. Not sit in front of a TV and watch it on The Americans.
Rick Holman
What happened after that was that the Russian spies were concerned that there would be a coup if Reagan died. The concern grew even more when Alexander Haig said that he was in control now.
This set off the plot where Elizabeth and Phil Jennings argued over the next move that could send the Americans and Russians into a nuclear war. Phillip took control as the voice of reason telling Elizabeth that Reagan would be fine and that nothing would happen. Eventually, after protesting, Elizabeth would see the light.
I was never big on Hollywood trying to portray history in TV shows and movies in this sort of revisionist history. They have enough trouble when they make movies where there is a reading of a Will when there is no such thing.
Of course, the Oliver Stone movie JFK was a great example of bias and revisionist history. I thought that Gerald Posner’s book, case closed was a great example of this, leaving out very important parts of Jim Garrisons investigation. For example, Garrison went on a TV show and said that he cracked Oswald’s code. He gave a bunch of numbers and said you can divide them by this and come up with the answer.
A reporter in the audience said you just made all that up to come up with an answer you wanted. Garrison would reply, so do you have a better idea.
I’m not big on trusting hollywood blending history especially after that. There were problems with Tom Hank’s movie Charlie Wilson’s War as well. Steve Cole’s book Ghost War painted a completely different picture of Charlie Wilson.
In any case, I shouldn’t have to look up things in non-fiction books to see that movies have their own reasons for doing this. When I see this on a TV show like the Americans, I get uncomfortable.
TV shows are for entertainment. Not for putting a spin on something like the Cold war. If people want to see that, then they can read about it or watch a documentary. Not sit in front of a TV and watch it on The Americans.
Rick Holman